Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Time for Obama to complete his 360° on gay marriage

Barack Obama was for legalizing gay marriage before he was undecided about it.

Then he was undecided about gay marriage until, as a matter of political strategy, he opposed it.

Then he opposed gay marriage as a matter of political strategy until he opposed it for religious reasons.

Then he opposed gay marriage for religious reasons until he explained that it should be a states' rights issue.

And now Obama is signaling that it's only a matter of time — a few more persuasive public opinion polls, perhaps — until he completes his 15-year cycle through the wilderness of cynicism, opportunism and cowardice, and once again declares his support for gay marriage.

It began in February 1996. Obama, then a candidate for the state Senate from a liberal South Side district, responded with a signed letter to an endorsement questionnaire from Outlines, a gay monthly based on the North Side. "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages," he said. In his response to questions from IMPACT, a local lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political-action committee, Obama wrote, "I would support (a pro gay-marriage) resolution."

But in October 1998, then-incumbent state Sen. Barack Obama filled out another questionnaire from Outlines: "Do you favor same-sex marriage?" it asked. "Would you support a bill to repeal Illinois' legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage? Would you co-sponsor it?"

To each question, Obama answered "undecided."

During the 2004 Democratic U.S. Senate primary campaign, Obama announced he was opposed to marriage equality. In a lengthy interview with Windy City Times (which merged with Outlines in 2000) he told publisher Tracy Baim, "I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. … (If) Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game."

Wink, wink, in other words. Seems like Obama is saying: "I'm with you, but if I get too far out ahead of the public on this, it will backfire on me as well as gays and lesbians."

Given Obama's otherwise strong views favoring gay rights, many activists chose to see this as pragmatism rather than equivocation. But then, during the general election, he added a religious gloss to his opposition that Baim said deeply troubled some of Obama's LGBT supporters.

"I'm a Christian," Obama said in a WBBM-AM 780 interview in September 2004. "And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs, say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." In August 2008, when he was running for president, he added to this sentiment: "God's in the mix."

But this belief of his was so weak that he aligned himself with the pro-gay-marriage side in California's famous Proposition 8 referendum measure banning same-sex marriage, and recently hailed the legalization of gay marriage in New York as "a good thing." He said his "feelings are constantly evolving" on gay marriage, and indicated the issue should be left up to the states, not the federal government.

"He's a constitutional lawyer, he knows better," said Baim, whose 2010 book, "Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage," thoroughly documented this uneasy alliance. "There are too many federal rights involved in marriage for it to be a state-by-state issue. Once again, he's just parsing his words."

Why? Perhaps because public approval of gay marriage tends to be weaker in next year's battleground states compared with the country as a whole, where recent polling suggests a slight majority now supports the idea. Perhaps because support for gay marriage still lags among African-American voters, who supported Obama overwhelmingly in 2004.

However, all this humbug and hand-waving underscores doubts about his authenticity and is draining the enthusiasm of his ardent backers on the left. Meanwhile, those who stoutly oppose gay marriage aren't fooled for a second that he's on their side.

Marriage equality supporters have lately taken to wearing buttons that read "Evolve, already."

What these buttons should say is "Revolve, already: Circle back to 1996."

You have the chance, Mr. President, to inspire and change hearts and minds. You have done it on myriad issues before, including on race, war, health care and economic doom. I respect your right not to speak out, and I will also base my opinions on your actions and not those much-desired words saying that you have fully "evolved" on marriage.

But there are many others who will not be so patient, who will not believe you, until you say those words:

"I support the right of the LGBT community to have full access to marriage as a federal right of citizenship."

Posted at 01:56:00 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I love the notion that he is a "constitutional lawyer." He went to law school and studied constitutional law like any Harvard student. He barely ever practiced. He was supposedly a "law professor," even though "professor" is an extremely loose term in law schools, and in academia is usually reserved for people on a tenure track. He taught a course; he was more like a "lecturer." In any event, his position on gay marriage is craven.

I thought the reason Obama doesn't come out publicly in support of gay marriage would be obvious to anybody. He would have nothing to gain by it and everything to lose. People would denounce such a position, or would say "Who cares? We've got matters like the economy to worry about!" and probably accuse him of causing a distraction. And besides, even if Obama fully supports gay marriage, what can he do to affect it one way or the other? I'd keep quiet about it if I were he.

Marriage is something that should be handled religiously, not by the State. By all means, if the State is to recognize two to be unified as a bonded couple, it needs to recognize it in more open terms. Marriage for most religions is between a man and a woman. What of an official love unification between a man and a man or a woman and a woman that is considered to be equal to marriage but not necessarily religious?

This is the biggest problem I see. The only type of bonding I see supported is "marriage".

Okay, I commend Zorn for poking at Obama here. It's fair, and, of course, Zorn is right -- on the ultimate policy issue and on the fact that Obama has played politics with it. At the same time, I have a pragmatic bottom line here. I tend to think that gay marriage is coming anyway, and sooner than opponents have predicted and would like. This is one of those issues where it seems clear that all it takes is time. Young people -- in one of those perhaps few areas where young people really have it completely right -- just don't see a problem with it. And they're not going to discover a problem with it as they get older, because there's no life experience I can conceive likely to turn them homophobic. Crime-phobic? Tax-phobic? Even immigrant-phobic? Sure, I get that, even as I disagree with it. But opposition to gay rights, including gay marriage, is just so irrational that not even the casual musings that come with life stages seem likely to turn around future old-people's complete acceptance of gays, along with gay families and gay marriage.

So, given that I think we're really on the right track here anyway and given that Obama has been, I would say, a great friend of gay rights, I guess I figure, let him have his b.s. for now if that's what it takes to win a second term.

quotidian, he was offered a position as a full professor at the University of Chicago Law School -- which he chose not to accept in favor of his political career. His position there was not merely a courtesy to a politician. He was a well-respected, serious guy (who got along well among, by the way, a faculty that was and is far more conservative than that of Harvard or Yale but no less demanding and rigorous). "Scholar" might be an exaggeration. "Professor" is okay in the vernacular, though he didn't technically hold that position. In any event, he had the intellectual chops to pursue a career as an academic, no doubt about it, and he was a brilliant and impressive teacher. I should know, because I took two classes from him.

It's a pretty safe political gamble -- Obama and his campaign people know those "ardent backers" certainly aren't going to flip and vote for a Republican over this issue, so why not just equivocate instead of possibly turning off any swing voters.

Baim is right, the state-by-state argument sounds very democratic and sensible, but ultimately gay marriage will have to be formally rejected or recognized at the federal level.

I'm waiting for someone to bring up the issue of polygamy, which is banned in all 50 states even though there's no federal law against it. (U.S. anti-bigamy laws in the 1800's only applied to federally administered territories.) If Utah were to legalize polygamy, the feds would have a real mess on their hands - it wouldn't be as simple as adding multiple "spouse" lines to the 1040 form.

I agree with you that young people tend to be more in favor of gay "marriage" but I have the impression that it isn't as true among young people who are ethnic/racial minorities (I haven't seen polling one way or the other though - just a gut feeling). Again, you raise a point that I brought up in an earlier thread. You are a smart, informed, fair guy who doesn't comprehend how one could argue against gay "marriage" and I can't comprehend the arguments in support of it. I didn't know that you took classes from Obama in law school. That explains so much (just kidding, I'm sure he was excellent). My only "celebrity" law professor was Father Drinan who was also well worth the price of admission.

You wrote "ultimately gay marriage will have to be formally rejected or recognized at the federal level." I could be missing something but I don't see why that would have to be the case. Can you explain?

ZORN REPLY -- Here's my take: Because there are so many rights and responsibilities entwined with marriage and so many federal laws that apply to married couples (taxes, ss, to wit) it really isn't viable to have state-only marriage contracts. Imagine the hassle if every time a straight married couple moved to a new state they had to go about re-marrying under the laws of those states.

If you think young people are accepting of homosexuality, you clearly need to look around. I have known people who genuinely hate homosexuals, and they have one thing in common-they have been sexually harrassed and/or abused by them. For the record, on one forum I visit, a Canadian poster told us about when he publicly admitted his homosexuality, and it turned out to be a disaster for him. His family kicked him out, his friends deserted him, his job fired him, and he ended up beaten up by thugs. (He's from central Ottowa, BTW). So much for supposed liberal societies.

When I say the feds have to formally accept or reject gay marriage, I'm thinking of those federal laws that explicitly give rights or obligations to "a husband and wife" instead of the generic term "spouse". I've seen this in U.S. tax and bankruptcy code, I'm sure there are many other instances.

[So, given that I think we're really on the right track here anyway and given that Obama has been, I would say, a great friend of gay rights, I guess I figure, let him have his b.s. for now if that's what it takes to win a second term.]

Great admission. I will take that one home.

So whenever President Obama says something how much skepticism should we show? I think about 70% of what BHO says is b.s. What is your percentage of skepticism?

BTW: I also have a lot of skepticism when Romney speaks. A lot less for Paul Ryan.

BTW again: I believe you shared with us that you are a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School. Thus your opinion on the following query is special. Since BHO never published an article in a law journal why was he given a position at the Law School? To what extent – if any – did his race matter?

JakeH –I have a lot of respect for your intellect and knowledge. But on this blog I would think about how you want to be branded. Are you a fearless intellectual who calls it as he sees it? Or are you an “apologist/ spin meister” for the left of center crowd?

Jake, although U of Chicago has deliberately fogged the issue, it is considered unheard of to offer a tenure position to a lecturer who has not published anything. It appears he was offered a tenure-track position, which is a far different thing.

If public opinion is changing so much, why did the Tribune have to close the posts on this article "Weekend stabbing adds to Boystown's street-crime woes" so quickly.
If the press reported more of the numerous crimes homosexuals commit [disrupting mass at a Catholic Church , last month} or reported atrocities honestly [The Catholic priest scandal was about homosexuals preying on children not pedophlia as wisely reported by the media, would public opinion still be the same?]

--It's obvious why Obama can get elected. He knows how politics work. Eric Zorn on the other hand does not. How would spending political capital on gay marriage help him or the cause? It will not help either. It would make liberals feel nice and warm inside and that's about all that will happen. It does not make a law and does not help him get elected. It does not help. The most important and useful thing he can do stay out of the way. He is doing that very well.

ZORN REPLY -- So I'll count you as one who thinks a candidate should tell voters what he thinks they want to hear rather than what he truly believes because "that's how politics works."

Obama isn't the problem or on the wrong side of anything. Marriage is a religious institution and the Government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Marriage means something different to different religious groups and the government treats them all the same, as if they were all Christian, (Catholic).

A 21st century American approach would be for the government to only offer civil unioin whether gay or straight and let each religious group consider marriage.

Marriage isn't found in the constitution and for good reason, unfortunately we no longer consider reason, only dogma.

ZORN REPLY -- Here's my take: Because there are so many rights and responsibilities entwined with marriage and so many federal laws that apply to married couples (taxes, ss, to wit) it really isn't viable to have state-only marriage contracts. Imagine the hassle if every time a straight married couple moved to a new state they had to go about re-marrying under the laws of those states.

GREG J REPLY -- You're right and that goes to the heart of my argument about why we should be reducing regulations applicable to married couples rather than extending them to other relationships. It would be nice to get the feds out of this entirely.

ZORN REPLY -- I don't know that you can when tax and benefit laws are tangled up in these social contracts we call marriage. If your case is to offer civil union contracts for any two adults who wish to enter in on them, one per customer, then I'm with you on that.

If a politician is moving the issue forward, I can forgive them for verbal pandering. I will let them have space to figure out what’s the best method.

Eric, bear with me on this baseball metaphor. I feel different levels of elected officials play different roles on any given issue. For whatever the reason Obama does not feel this is worth swinging away and hoping for a home run. He has chosen to work the count and get on base. Gay marriage is moving along and he is helping not hurting. I think as President his method is more effective. A Governor or Senator will make the big plays on Gay marriage. That is where the game will be won. Just look at the score if you don’t believe me.

--I think one of the problems Republicans have in regaining the White House is the demand by their base they take one side on issues, the far right side. They must be anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-taxes, anti-government, and of course, they must be pro-religion. Whoops, I forgot recent changes in this line-up, you must also be anti-deficit and anti-war until your guy wins back the White House.

Before the backlash hits, I admit Democrats have issues they must support, too. The most important is basic rights for all, and equal treatment, access for all. My problem is, why can't candidates from either side have personal views on social issues that don't follow party lines? Most of the voters in this country also have views that don't subscribe to a particular ideology, but cross over frequently. Maybe then our candidates wouldn't have to feel they need to express opinions to protect or gain votes, we could know how they really feel.

Zorn is correct to question Obama on this matter, he has wandered around on this issue for political reasons. Who knows what he really thinks about gay marriage, while it's clear he supports equal rights for gays?

[If a politician is moving the issue forward, I can forgive them for verbal pandering. I will let them have space to figure out what’s the best method.]

Now verbal pandering is O.K. with you! As I said to JakeH above:

***So whenever President Obama says something how much skepticism should we show? I think about 70% of what BHO says is b.s. What is your percentage of skepticism?***

People did know where President GWB stood. That was why some citizens were able to vehemently disagree with him. That was why his popularity plummeted while he stood firm. GWB DID NOT say all things to all people.

Please allow me offer a better practical approach.

It would be better for a politician to say ***This is what I believe in ….but I will do what it takes to move the ball forward.***

It will be better for an executive level politician to say ***I strongly oppose this law but I give you my word that I will fairly enforce it.***

Daniel,
---Marriage is a religious institution and the Government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Marriage means something different to different religious groups and the government treats them all the same, as if they were all Christian---

Marriage is only a "religious institution" becuase the religious say that it is. There does not have to be anything religious about it. Why does the church feel that they have a monopoly on the word "marriage"? I think that allowing two separate rites of union, marriage and civil unions, could cause many more issues moving forward into the future.

ZORN REPLY -- I don't know that you can when tax and benefit laws are tangled up in these social contracts we call marriage. If your case is to offer civil union contracts for any two adults who wish to enter in on them, one per customer, then I'm with you on that.

GREG J REPLY -- I'm mostly with you and this is why I think the eventual compromise is civil unions in exchange for the preservation of traditional marriage. I'd still love to see those benefits cut back though.

The only states in which same-sex 'marriage' is legal are those in which it has been imposed either by a legislature or by judicial fiat.

In 31 states the people have had their say on the subject of same-sex 'marriage'.
In 31 states the answer has been no.
In Maine it was imposed by the legislature, a petition to repeal the law was circulated and put on the referendum.
In spite of the fact that we haters, liars, gay-bashers, homophobes, closed minded fear-mongering bigots were outspent by more than $1,500,000, the law was repealed.

--I just wanted to thank Eric Zorn for this thought-provoking, level-headed column, especially after the drivel by Dennis Byrne published in yesterday's (Tuesday 7/5/11) Chicago Tribune.

I am a single gay man. And, I have a lesbian sister who has been in a relationship for two decades, and they have three happy, healthy children together. So, for me, the gay marriage thing should be a non-issue. It saddens me that it has become such a wedge issue and dividing line. Just let us get married to the one we love already! What is so dang wrong with that? Even if you don't agree with it, it doesn't affect heterosexual marriage any more than divorce, or shows such as "The Bachelor", or extra-marital affairs already do...

As a political liberal, I gave money to Obama's campaign last time around. But, because I feel he has not been the best friend to the LGBT community, I will not contribute again. But of course I would not ever vote for a Republican presidential candidate either...so hopefully Obama is "playing it safe" until he's elected to a second term. I, for one, would have so much respect for him if he would come out in support of gay marriage.

"Feelings are constantly evolving" - the man is lying. He just doesn't have the guts to say so. Obama will come out (?!) again for same sex 'marriage' when it is politically safe for him to do so - he has not changed his mind since he spoke up on the subject in 1996.

Just like the decision not do defend DOMA - he felt that way from word one, but he waited until it was the right time.

Hmmm, ... I have some trouble with your topic sentence because out of the top 3 candidates Pawlenty and Romney fail the anti-tax test, Romney fails the anti-big government test, Romney is multiple choice on abortion (an all-time great Ted Kennedy line), Pawlenty and Huntsman supported cap-and-trade (a social and fiscal issue), and Huntsman's track record on immigration is problematic to say the very least. I'll concede that outside of the candidates who actually have a chance (the big 3 that I mentioned), you may have a better argument, but those are the candidates who can least afford to stray from conservative orthodoxy - the not-so-subtle implication being that their views may be a political calculation as much as anything else.

I stand four square for the sanctity of MARRIAGE, especially those ones peformed with drunken men & women by Elvis impersonators in Las Vegas, or those ones that last a day or two (see Britney Spears), of those performed while the bride's father is aiming a shotgun at the groom, or those being performed for the, e.g., fourth time (see the drug addict Limbaugh), or those.......

Do you mean a 180 degree turn? This is because 360 degrees is a complete circle.

Which means that if Obama is currently against marriage equality and in favor of civil unions, if he does a 360 he will make a complete circle and come back to where he started.

Doing a 180 means that he would then do a turn around and go in the other direction. So, if he's for civil unions now, if he does a 180, then he will be in favor of the opposite, which is marriage equality.

ZORN REPLY -- No, I mean a 360...full circle, back to his original position in 1996.

-- I'm mostly with you and this is why I think the eventual compromise is civil unions in exchange for the preservation of traditional marriage--

Can you please explain how this further? I find it hard to understand that two previously divorced hetero atheists can jump in a rainbow colored volkswagen bus, perform premarrital sexual acts in a Chic-fil-A parking lot, drive to vegas, and get MARRIED in a drive-thru by elvis, but two gay individuals must follow the civil union path.

If all you are looking for in a "traditional marriage" is for it to be under the roof of god in a church, nobody will ever stop you folks from doing that.

The way to solve the problem you raised is to make divorce more difficult so that people have incentives to take marriage seriously.

I'm not thrilled with government involvement in marriage but I think we're stuck with it. There is a decent argument that the government has an interest in promoting marriage as the most stable building block for an ordered society. I disagree with expanding marriage to cover other arrangements (i.e., homosexual relationships) where the state doesn't have such an interest (or at least as much of an interest). I don't think that such an expansion is fiscally responsible or socially necessary.

I like you assume that we are stuck with the governement's involvement, but this is where your argument is trumped by the constitution. Once the governement becomes involved then it has to be equal treatment under the law. Not "separate but equal" or in the case of most homosexual civil union laws "separate and still unequal".

Once you admit that we are stuck with big G's involvement, then nothing else matters.

Jerry, I don't think that I'm being an Obama spin-meister when I refer to his gay marriage position as "b.s." It *is* b.s. -- Zorn is totally right. I have to admit that I think that temporary b.s. is worth an Obama victory in '12. I'm not sure that the b.s. is really necessary. But, suppose that it really is -- then what? I prefer the moral purity of the position that says, "Just say what you think and make your best case, and the people will respect you for it." And I'm not comfortable with the pragmatic calculator who says, "Say only what you can sell, because otherwise you'll simply risk the mission in favor of an ill-advised display of self-righteous valor." At the same time, can any of us deny that the first position is affected by some wishful thinking and that the second position has some truth to it? I think that we all walk around with an uneasy mix of principle and pragmatism, and Obama is no different.

Here's food for thought-Obama's (or anybody else's) position on gay marriage is going to have an infintesimal effect on who gets elected President in 2012. There's too many far more important issues the public is worrying about right now.

I agree, Romney, Pawlenty, and Huntsman have taken less than conservative positions, but they're quickly reneging on them now they're running for president. Mark Kirk did the same when he ran for Senate. What's popular when running for state offices/governor doesn't work on the national level, something Obama has learned as well. Would you admit their changed views may be a political calculation as much as anything else?

[So, given that I think we're really on the right track here anyway and given that Obama has been, I would say, a great friend of gay rights, I guess I figure, let him have his b.s. for now if that's what it takes to win a second term.]

In response thereto I asked:

“So whenever President Obama says something how much skepticism should we show? I think about 70% of what BHO says is b.s. What is your percentage of skepticism?”

Similarly I want to know whether you are like President Obama in this regard or are you a fearless intellectual who calls it as he sees it?

Or stated in a slightly different way:

On this blog are you an advocate of liberal/progressive positions and candidates or are you a fearless intellectual who calls it as he sees it?

That is what I meant by my apologist/spin meister query.

Please feel free to be what you want. I want to know how seriously I should take you. Since you have a first rate intellect and knowledge base I selfishly want you to choose the fearless intellectual route.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. Yes, their changed views are a politicial calculation as much as anything else. Romney is not nearly as conservative as he's pretending to be. Huntsman is not nearly as moderate as he'd like you to believe (although his moderation is mostly in his tone, which is natural, rather than any changed beliefs). I find Huntsman to be a calculating individual but not necessarily in a bad way. Pawlenty may be pretty close to what he projects even if he's had a change of heart on a minor issue here and there.

If you say that as your instructor in Constitutional Law BHO was a great teacher who had a great command of the subject --

Do I accept this statement 100%? Or do I discount it by 70% because you are BS’ing to help President Obama get re-elected?

ZORN REPLY -- Somehow, I don't think this election is going to turn on Obama's pedagogical skills.
I thought the brief against him was that he was too cerebral, too "professorial." Now it seems you righties want him to be a secret nitwit as well.
He's a very smart, accomplished person. Why is that so hard to concede? I'll concede it about Newt Gingrich.

Obama is not a nit wit like Blago. He might be mediocre like GWB. I see very little evidence to the contrary. Perhaps magna cum laude at Harvard L.S. is a contrary bit of evidence.

If he is smart then we are forced to attribute unsavory motives to him regarding his g/l marriage evolution.

If he is smart why did he allow Pelosi do the heavy lifting on healthcare reform?

If he wants jobs why is he allowing the NRLB to screw American businesses. It appears he is more worried about union workers than all workers. Is that done out of mediocrity or with the unsavory motive of wanting allies in his re-election campaign?

Dienne claims that BHO is doing what he is doing in Libya and Afghanistan because he is a pawn of imperialist puppet masters on Wall Street. Since I am not allowed to bash Dienne – I will say no more.

Zorn called him spineless and a pants wetter. Calling him mediocre is far less harsh.

Good column; I will link to it from my Old Jarhead blog. In fifteen years, no one will care about Gay marriage, global warming, Casey Anthony or where Obama was born. They will care deeply about trying to feed their families, heat their huts and defend themselves from triumphant criminal gangs as the financial collapse works with existential external threats to pull our country apart.

Robert A. Hall
Des Plaines, IL
Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic
(All royalties go to a charity to help wounded veterans)

Jerry, unlike Obama, I'm not a politician. With my semi-anonymity here, I feel free to say what I think (minus all the curse words). I recognize that politicians don't necessarily have the same freedom. Your basic questions is, If a politician tells one light lie about his true convictions, of the sort that's common in the field, can we trust him about anything else? I think you have to look at the whole picture. My impression is that Obama's speeches and writings and public statements are unusually honest and even heartfelt. I think that when he's really playing politics -- saying what he doesn't truly believe -- as he is with gay marriage, such incidents stand in sharp contrast to his usual mode, and so are easy to recognize. You seem to want to attribute to Obama a good deal of bad faith, and I don't know where that comes from. What do you suppose is his real, hidden agenda? What big lies do you think he's telling? When you say that you think "70 percent" of what he says is bunk, what do you have in mind? I guess I'm at a loss to dispute your Theory of Obama until you spell it out for me.

ZORN said: "I thought the brief against him was that he was too cerebral, too "professorial." Now it seems you righties want him to be a secret nitwit as well.
He's a very smart, accomplished person. Why is that so hard to concede? "

No, no, no, you forget that there were always two narratives about Obama during the last campaign and they were always diametrically opposed.

the list went on and on, though I'm too tired to think of more right now.

My take on the whole gay marriage thing is two-fold. One, he always said he supported civil unions instead, during the campaign. As someone who would prefer civil unions for all...

But, this isn't a federal issue right now, is it? Think of DADT -- it wasn't fast, but it came about as a result not of presidential fiat (which could be overturned by another president) but instead a federal statute voted on by congress.

Someone above said that Pelosi had to do all the heavy lifting on healthcare. But what is it called by all its detractors? Obamacare, right? Do you really think that his throwing his weight around on individual states' legislation is going to make the issue more popular or gain it votes? Not unless you think something called "Obamarriage" on Fox all the day long, with some insane picture to go with it is a good idea.

There are many issues on which I disagree with him (EDUCATION and his insistence on listening to Arne Duncan/Gates/Broad/Walton, Libya and our still being there, and I'd liked to have seen trial for those who approved of and implemented torture in the last administration) and many issues I wish could be moved further, faster.

But, this is how our government works, slowly, with huge amounts of compromise and rarely giving any one side a decisive win (at least not for long).

I can give you the whole picture of Obama:
Promised to close Gitmo in a year-still open.
Promised to repeal the Patriot Act-not repealed.
Promised a more transparent administration-his is just as transparent as any previous Presidential administration.
Promised national health care and to make uninsured people insured-that hasn't happened.
Promised to reduce our military commitments-starts a new war in Libya which serves American interests not one iota.
Why anyone still expects Obama to be reelected I cannot possibly imagine.

ZORN REPLY -- ONe reason is because, right now, his leading contender is flip-floppin' George Romney who makes Obama look like a rock of consistency. And whomever he runs against is going to have a carousel's worth of his own baggage as well.
I can't decide if your constant "I can't believe anyone would vote for Obama" is supposed to be sound political analysis or just the gassy expulsions of a bitter, partisan crank. If it's the latter, as I expect, you should know that it's simply boring and annoying.
If it's the former, you need to read a bit more recent political history before sounding off.

@Zorn-
Call me every name in the book if you like. The fact is that I'm merely telling the facts you don't like. As I mentioned before, a lot of liberals despise Obama for the reasons I mentioned. If I annoy you, tough, because you and every other Obama supporter deserves to be annoyed for sticking their heads in the sand. I am very knowledgeable of political history, thank you very much. I'm just not a mindless Obama worshipper like some people here who think Obama has done no wrong. I see little that he has done right.

While I find this hard to do, I have to thank Eric Zorn for allowing pro-heterosexual marriage comments. It appears the Chicago Tribune's regular posts editor are in the hands of some crazed Orwellian with the latest newspeak dictionary.

I admit that Romney is all over the place with his flip-flops. I don't believe I've ever written anything to the contrary. He is a serious candidate but one whom I can not support because I don't trust him and his track record doesn't match his stated views.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.